By Kennedy Buhere
“Let the questions be the curriculum.” — Socrates
Columnist X. N. Iraki recently urged educated Kenyans to focus their public engagement on the curriculum rather than the structural aspects of ongoing education reforms.
“The big debate on CBE has been about the placement of junior school, teaching methodology and examinations — and not content,” Iraki lamented in an article titled Let’s Prioritise Quality Learning This Year, published in The Standard on January 4.
He went further, arguing that “curriculum content is as important as a constitution and should be subjected to a referendum.”
At its core, Iraki’s concern is valid. The curriculum is the DNA of any education system. Debates on education reform should fundamentally revolve around four issues: the purpose of schooling; what students are taught; teacher education and training — both pre-service and in-service; and assessment, or how learning outcomes are evaluated.
This, in essence, is the curriculum. One could convincingly argue that education reform is ultimately about curriculum reform.
However, I disagree with the suggestion that curriculum should be subjected to a referendum. Some of the most consequential curricula in human history were crafted not by popular vote, but by individuals or small groups of eminent thinkers. Plato, Moses, Jesus Christ, Prophet Muhammad, Confucius, Siddhartha Gautama and Zoroaster were, in effect, great curriculum architects. Their ideas shaped education systems and ways of life for centuries.
That said, Iraki is correct in observing that curriculum has been relegated to the periphery of education reform debates.
Education reform has two broad dimensions: structural and curricular.
Structural reform concerns how schooling is organised — the number of years learners spend in primary or secondary school; who bears the cost of education and how it is shared; how teachers are recruited and remunerated; who provides infrastructure; whether education is centralised or decentralised; governance and control of the system; and issues such as class size and school size.
Curriculum reform, on the other hand, addresses the heart of teaching and learning. It asks fundamental questions: What is taught? Who teaches, and with what level of competence?
It also grapples with instructional choices. How should learners be taught to read — through phonics, whole language, or a blend of both? Should vernacular languages be used as the medium of instruction in early years? If so, when should English or another foreign language be introduced? Should basic literacy and numeracy be prioritised before introducing multiple academic subjects, or should everything be taught at once?
Curriculum design must answer what core knowledge and skills learners acquire from Grade 1 through Grade 12. It must define how intellectual development is balanced with moral education. It must decide when arts and crafts are introduced — and when, if ever, they are phased out — recognising their role in training the eyes and hands. Physical education, which develops psychomotor skills, must also be addressed: should it be a pillar of the curriculum, and how do we ensure that every school offers it consistently?
Another critical question is subject choice. At what point should learners be allowed to take optional subjects without compromising their physical, cognitive and psychosocial development? When should subject choices begin to reflect learners’ abilities, career aspirations and certification pathways?
Equally important is the issue of gifted learners. Curricula are typically designed for the “average” child. Yet in every population there are gifted children whose intellectual and academic development outpaces their peers. When forced to move at the same pace as everyone else, many lose motivation and waste their potential.
How should the education system serve such learners? Through acceleration, enrichment or differentiation? Are teachers adequately prepared to identify and support them?
When gifted learners are neglected, we often lose them to indiscipline, substance abuse, truancy and disengagement from school. I recall former Principal Secretary for the Implementation of Curriculum Reforms, Prof. Fatuma Chege, raising this concern during a workshop in Machakos. Unfortunately, the issue was glossed over.
All this underscores one truth: curriculum is not a peripheral matter in education reform. It determines whether an education system delivers high-value or low-value outcomes. Some education systems deliberately design curricula that respond to the needs of gifted learners, precisely because failure to do so creates long-term social and educational problems.
Globally, curriculum occupies a central place in education policy debates. In many countries, education reform is virtually synonymous with curriculum reform.
Ministers of education around the world spend considerable time thinking about curriculum — its rigour, coherence and progression across the school system. They seek policy advice on aligning the purpose of schooling with what is taught and how effectively it is taught. Structural issues matter, but curriculum remains the marrow of education.
A brief tour of global education systems confirms this focus. In Australia, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority develops curricula through expert panels and extensive public consultation, followed by classroom trials and validation before final publication.
Former Australian education minister Alan Tudge made curriculum one of his central priorities, alongside teacher quality and assessment, as part of efforts to return Australia to the top tier of global education systems.
In the United Kingdom, successive education reforms have been overwhelmingly curriculum-driven. From James Callaghan’s Ruskin Speech in 1976, to Margaret Thatcher’s reforms under Kenneth Baker, to Tony Blair’s “education, education, education” agenda and Michael Gove’s tenure, curriculum has dominated reform discourse.
Similarly, landmark education reform reports in the United States have largely focused on curriculum content, standards and coherence.
Educated citizens, therefore, should move beyond debates about placement of learners in senior school. The real question is what is being taught — the content, the curriculum — because that is the kernel of education.
Kennedy Buhere
Communication Specialist